Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-07-10 Thread Ben Reser
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 12:49:30PM +0200, Marcel Pol wrote:
> I also have an oldworld PowerMac 185 Mhz, 96 Mb ram. 
> It's mostly too slow to compile anything, but it does run cooker.
> I believe Ben Reser has a few ppc machines, but I don't know if he runs cooker
> on it.

I've tried to run cooker on PPC.  It's normally so seriously broken that
it is utterly unusable.  I don't have many PPC boxes so I run stable
releases.  Additionally I don't have tons of disk space on them to throw
at cooker.  I already have to maintain 8.2/PPC and 9.1/PPC on them for
security update testing.  Since only myself and Vincent are the only
people who do PPC testing I set that as a priority over cooker.

Regarding SPARC, I have several Ultra Sparcs but they're otherwise
occupied with other operating systems.  I might be willing to run a
chroot under it for building Mandrake and switch to running Mandrake if
we get a stable release, but I'm only really interested in doing that if
we are going to have a "officially supported" release (meaning security
updates).  If we don't do that it's more work than it is worth to me.
Especially given the fact that very few people use Sparcs for desktop
machines and that is what most people see Mandrake as.

-- 
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org

"What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can
no longer believe you." -- Nietzsche



Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-09 Thread Vincent Danen
On Sun Jun 08, 2003 at 09:49:20AM +0200, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:

> >Also, don't forget updates. Unless the people who build these ports are
> >willing to maintain a system/chroot/whatever dedicated for 18mos for
> >building updates for these ports, it won't happen. As Stefan says, making
> >this stuff "official" means it needs to be maintained; without having 
> >access
> >to these various machines for the duration of the lifecycle, it's not even
> >worth starting it.
> >
> Yes.
> 
> >That being said, there is nothing from stopping a community built/community
> >hosted unofficial port; the community builds the port, the community
> >maintains the port, and MandrakeSoft doesn't have any official dealings 
> >with
> >it (ie. the community completely and 100% supports it themselves).
> >
> Yes.

Glad you understnad this... hopefully, others will understand this as well.

> >For alpha, mips, pa-risc, and sparc, I think that would be the best shot.
> >You could like talk ibiblio or someone into hosting the port if you wanted
> >to make an "unofficial 9.2/pa-risc" release (or whatever).
> >
> We first need to get our act together :-) The alpha port is still on the 
> mdk mirrors at the moment. I can imaging that mdk perhaps won't do the 
> same for the other ports that have sprung up lately.

Well, you never know.  There could be a clear Mandrake-unsupported
directory.  Or it could be something that people need to contact ibiblio or
something directly.  That's probably the least of your concerns right now.

> >For PPC, I'd love to see it released in tangent with x86 (as well as x86-64
> >and ia64 I guess).
> >
> Yes. Have release schedules been published for these products?

Not to my knowledge.

-- 
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
Online Security Resource Book; http://linsec.ca/
"lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FE6F2AFD : 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7  66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}



pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-Intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Michael Scherer

> Yes, by extranet, I meant VPN. And as you can see, we already have
> distcc working on the sparcs. (Thanks Per Oyvind! :)

Mhh, do you think that distcc could work on a vpn ? isn't there some 
issues about the bandwidth ?

> BTW, What are our options for building the VPN? IP-IP, IP-GRE (easy
> to configure, but unencrypted) and IPSec (freeswan), thou I have no
> idea about the latter ;)

I suggest using openvpn ( http://openvpn.sourceforge.net/ ), and  I 
think it has several advantages over ipsec.

It is a userland software, which mean there is no need for a kernel 
patch it order to upgrade or to set up a new host.

It is based on openssl, which allow the use of certificat, and a wide 
range of cryptographic algorithms. IpSec can do it too, I think.

It work by using udp, which is easier to control on a firewall , and 
provides good performance when a tcp connection is made.

It is robust, a host can be disconnected without any problem or need to 
reload any service. It also work when a host change his ip address.

Is is portable on all unices, and of course, is free software.

-- 

Michaël Scherer




Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-Intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Jaroslaw Zachwieja
On nie 8. czerwca 2003 14:59, Michael Scherer wrote:
> > However with more machines to rebuild packages (and with centralised
> > and automated extranet) we may be able to make it for the next
> > release.
>
> what about using a cross compiler ? If done properly, people just have
> to install a rpm on a i586 box, and compile for alpha or mips or what
> they want.

I'm not a software developer, but I'm not sure if using cross compiler 
would always work. Feel free to correct me :)

> and, when you say a extranet, do you mean some kind of vpn, with access
> for the community ? if so, then using a crosscompiler and , maybe
> distcc will allow to have more ressources avaliaible, but i don't know
> if this is possible.

Yes, by extranet, I meant VPN. And as you can see, we already have distcc 
working on the sparcs. (Thanks Per Oyvind! :)

BTW, What are our options for building the VPN? IP-IP, IP-GRE (easy to 
configure, but unencrypted) and IPSec (freeswan), thou I have no idea 
about the latter ;)

Regards,
-- 
Jaroslaw Zachwieja
Centre for Scientific Computing
University of Warwick




Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-Intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Per Øyvind Karlsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 08 June 2003 15:59, Michael Scherer wrote:
> and, when you say a extranet, do you mean some kind of vpn, with access
> for the community ? if so, then using a crosscompiler and , maybe
> distcc will allow to have more ressources avaliaible, but i don't know
> if this is possible.
we have distcc on the sparc cluster:)
- -- 
Regards,
Per Øyvind Karlsen
Sintrax Solutions
http://www.sintrax.net - +47 41681061
- 
GPG Key: http://sintrax.net/~hawkeye/key.asc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+40lZv8F7V9JOSuURAlMDAJ44zlIoG5JAmH+TscK9AtvteUDZqwCeMn6a
BLNdyWWP8yk2EOYo8wYXey4=
=1Mpb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-Intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Michael Scherer

> 2) We (the community) have resources to keep the cooker tree up to
> date, with exception of Drak* tools.

Not all, only the ones who deals with the hardware.


> However with more machines to rebuild packages (and with centralised
> and automated extranet) we may be able to make it for the next
> release.

what about using a cross compiler ? If done properly, people just have 
to install a rpm on a i586 box, and compile for alpha or mips or what 
they want.

and, when you say a extranet, do you mean some kind of vpn, with access 
for the community ? if so, then using a crosscompiler and , maybe 
distcc will allow to have more ressources avaliaible, but i don't know 
if this is possible.

-- 

Michaël Scherer




Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-Intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Jaroslaw Zachwieja
Hello,

Thanks for the feedback on the idea. Now, I would like to summarise some 
points that aroused in your replies.

1) MandrakeSoft might be reluctant to take the non-Intel ports under it's 
wings. This of course makes sense (as Stefan noticed, support = money, and 
we cannot ask the company for it in it's current state). I (and I think we 
all do) understand this (unofficial) position and respect it.

2) We (the community) have resources to keep the cooker tree up to date, 
with exception of Drak* tools. Thou they are important, they're not 
absolutely essential for development of the port 'per se'. What we need is 
up to date tree of cooker, and probably plf packages. With current 
resources this is doable. I've seen the schedule of 9.2 and realised, that 
"syncing" ports to it would be a bit of Hercules' job. However with more 
machines to rebuild packages (and with centralised and automated extranet) 
we may be able to make it for the next release. At this point, about 12 
months in the future we might be able to talk again to MandrakeSoft about 
possible "non-official" releases, that would stay community supported, but 
with worksing Drak* suite. Up to this point, CSC can provide required 
space for the ports on it's ftp server.

3) Most of the development machines are (or could be) located behind a 
front-end computer that would act as proposed extranet gateway and 
temporary storage. I think, that central storage node could be located at 
CSC, as we can
a) guarantee the support for the system for the following 12 months by 
some sort of "public agreement" (think Debian's "contract")
b) provide ftp server for the ports (we have both computer and network 
resources to do that).
4) Machines in other locations will have the same, unrestricted access 
through the extranet. All rebuild packages could be automatically copied 
to the storage node (30GB makes sense, I think).

5) From your mail, it seems that we /MIGHT/ be able to run the porting for 
the following architectures: Alpha, (Mips?), PPC, Sparc64 (32?) and 
X86_64.

6) The access to the extranet would be granted both to community developers 
and core, MandrakeSoft developers.

7) It's important to realise, that even if we successfully port everything 
to other architectures, MandrakeSoft might not be able to offer the ports 
as officially supported products. In that case we should have enough 
resources to supply patched packages for at least 18 months. This of 
course is personal decision of every developer, however I would strongly 
encourage you to pursue this goal (again, think Debian :). Mandrake Linux 
has strong community and I'm sure that some of us would do it.

"Where do we go from here, is up to you."

PS. I'm working on that XP1000 :)
-- 
Jaroslaw Zachwieja
Centre for Scientific Computing
University of Warwick




Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Marcel Pol
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 09:36:05 +0200
Stefan van der Eijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> >>>At the moment, to my knowledge we have the following machines _dedicated_
> >>>to non-intel cooker development (please, developers, fill in all blanks):
> >>>
> >>>Alpha
> >>>- 2 x XP1000 - CSC still 7.1b - need help with this
> >>>- 1 x PWS433au - Stefan Van Der Eijk
> >>- 1 x PCI33 - mpol
> >>- 1 x ??? - Juan
> >>- 1 x DP264 - Paris office (same as Juan's?)
> >>
> - others?
> 
> 
> >>>SPARC
> >>>
> >>>- 1 x SparcStation 10 SMP - Olivier Thauvin
> >>>- 1 x SparcClassic - CSC (unused - 32 bit system)
> >>>- 2 x Ultra 10 - CSC
> >>>- 1 x Ultra 5 - CSC
> >>>- others?
> >>>
> >>>PPC
> >>>
> >>>- 1 x Titanium G4 500, 512 Mo Ram - Olivier Thauvin

I also have an oldworld PowerMac 185 Mhz, 96 Mb ram. 
It's mostly too slow to compile anything, but it does run cooker.
I believe Ben Reser has a few ppc machines, but I don't know if he runs cooker
on it.


> >>>- others?
> >>>
> >>>x86_64
> >>>
> >>>- 1 x Dual Opteron 240 - CSC (ETA 15 days)
> >>>- others?
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>PA-RISC
> >>- 1 x HP 9000 D-class model D390/800 - Stefan van der Eijk (on loan
> >>during the summer)
> >>
> >>
> >I have one HP box but don't know if linux can run on it. Will looking.
> >
> I booted the debian installer on it yesterday. So it should run Linux. 
> The box has 2* 8200 CPU's (240MHz, 4Mb cache each), 1Gb RAM and 2* 9Gb 
> disk. And it's huge (60*26*55cm) & heavy (45kg). I wasn't seriously 
> thinking about porting mdk to it. The plan was to install debian and 
> hand it back to it's owner (the local scouting group) but since they 
> don't need it till after the summer, I might try mdk anyway :-)
> 
> >>MIPS
> >>- 1 x SGI IRIS Indigo - Stefan van der Eijk (RAM defect?)
> >>
> This box is probably too slow to do anything usefull.



--
Marcel Pol





Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Stefan van der Eijk


Releasing means supporting. supporting a product requires an 
organisation and knowledge being available. It also needs to be 
worthwhile --> bring some $$$ to the company. For the alpha, mips, 
pa-risc and sparc the market is too small.

Since I'm more or less the maintainer of the alpha port, I've had some 
interesting discussions with mdk employees on this topic. I don't have 
the illusion that the alpha port will ever turn into a "product" that 
will be supported and even bring revenue to mdk. I see it as my personal 
research project --> I want to prove that maintaining multiple ports can 
be done efficiently...

   

Also, don't forget updates. Unless the people who build these ports are
willing to maintain a system/chroot/whatever dedicated for 18mos for
building updates for these ports, it won't happen. As Stefan says, making
this stuff "official" means it needs to be maintained; without having access
to these various machines for the duration of the lifecycle, it's not even
worth starting it.
Yes.

That being said, there is nothing from stopping a community built/community
hosted unofficial port; the community builds the port, the community
maintains the port, and MandrakeSoft doesn't have any official dealings with
it (ie. the community completely and 100% supports it themselves).
Yes.

For alpha, mips, pa-risc, and sparc, I think that would be the best shot.
You could like talk ibiblio or someone into hosting the port if you wanted
to make an "unofficial 9.2/pa-risc" release (or whatever).
We first need to get our act together :-) The alpha port is still on the 
mdk mirrors at the moment. I can imaging that mdk perhaps won't do the 
same for the other ports that have sprung up lately.

For PPC, I'd love to see it released in tangent with x86 (as well as x86-64
and ia64 I guess).
Yes. Have release schedules been published for these products?

Stefan


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-08 Thread Stefan van der Eijk

But, we might be getting to the point where we actually need a cooker
extranet. For example, I would like to be able to remove build output on
an automated build host to get a package rebuilt, but we wouldn't want
anyone to be able to remove build output ...
   

It seems installer need works on sparc/alpha; Guillaume Cottenceau seems to 
agree about working on port be he need a computer to test, of course.

About network, I have an athlon as frontend which host chroot for plf, it have 
lot of disk space, host unique home/repository for all development 
(i586/ppc/sparc).

I've got a ix86 box as frontend. Mirrors directly off of mdk. It's 
behind a cablemodem (down: 1.5Mbit, up 128kbit). I've got a second ix86 
in an Internet datacentre doing nothing at the moment.

About buildoutput, I have a personnal script to rebuild package on ppc/sparc. 
log are put in a directory, maybe we can a unique repository where all 
rebuilder can upload automatically those files. With a standard convention 
naming for automatically removing obsoletes log.

I suggest we merge the scripts in the near future.

Well, SPARC's (and at some point Alpha and Opteron 240 SMP) at CSC are on
private network behind 9.1 i586 box. I can't see anything that should stop
us from creating the extranet and have the builds automated and
coordinated. Some centralised user authentication might be a good idea at
some point if we have more developers.
The only drawback would be probably the fact, that single development
machines without dedicated front-end might need some more work to
configure everything, but I think that it'll be worth it.
Stefan? Olivier? Gwenole? What do you think?

At the moment, to my knowledge we have the following machines _dedicated_
to non-intel cooker development (please, developers, fill in all blanks):
Alpha
- 2 x XP1000 - CSC still 7.1b - need help with this
- 1 x PWS433au - Stefan Van Der Eijk
 

- 1 x PCI33 - mpol
- 1 x ??? - Juan
- 1 x DP264 - Paris office (same as Juan's?)
- others?


SPARC

- 1 x SparcStation 10 SMP - Olivier Thauvin
- 1 x SparcClassic - CSC (unused - 32 bit system)
- 2 x Ultra 10 - CSC
- 1 x Ultra 5 - CSC
- others?
PPC

- 1 x Titanium G4 500, 512 Mo Ram - Olivier Thauvin
 

- others?

x86_64

- 1 x Dual Opteron 240 - CSC (ETA 15 days)
- others?
 

PA-RISC
- 1 x HP 9000 D-class model D390/800 - Stefan van der Eijk (on loan
during the summer)
   

I have one HP box but don't know if linux can run on it. Will looking.

I booted the debian installer on it yesterday. So it should run Linux. 
The box has 2* 8200 CPU's (240MHz, 4Mb cache each), 1Gb RAM and 2* 9Gb 
disk. And it's huge (60*26*55cm) & heavy (45kg). I wasn't seriously 
thinking about porting mdk to it. The plan was to install debian and 
hand it back to it's owner (the local scouting group) but since they 
don't need it till after the summer, I might try mdk anyway :-)

MIPS
- 1 x SGI IRIS Indigo - Stefan van der Eijk (RAM defect?)
This box is probably too slow to do anything usefull.

I think, that only computers solely dedicated (i.e. not used in any other
way) may be listed here and eventually included in the extranet.
Because CSC uses Mandrake on all workstations and servers, and we're very
happy with it (kudos to both cooker and core development teams!) our
position is to support development of the distribution by providing
hardware and network resources in return. Naturally we're aware that
hosting the machines is serious commitment (especially sustaining the
support over time) and we're ready to fulfil it.
Maybe if we manage to pull this off before 9.2 and have all the packages
rebuilt, MandrakeSoft will be interested in releasing 9.2 for i586,
x86_64, Alpha, Sparc64 and PPC?
 


Releasing means supporting. supporting a product requires an
organisation and knowledge being available. It also needs to be
worthwhile --> bring some $$$ to the company. For the alpha, mips,
pa-risc and sparc the market is too small.
   

Right, but look at ppc, mandrake exactly the same product as you can find on 
mirror ( 3 isos ). Mandrake never make somethings to promote the distro on 
non i586.

They can't --> they won't have the resources to support it and it won't 
be profitable.

I think making an installable distro for sparc/alpha/ppc will make publicity 
and prove a mandrake activity.

Perhaps.

Since I'm more or less the maintainer of the alpha port, I've had some
interesting discussions with mdk employees on this topic. I don't have
the illusion that the alpha port will ever turn into a "product" that
will be supported and even bring revenue to mdk. I see it as my personal
research project --> I want to prove that maintaining multiple ports can
be done efficiently...

   

Well maybe I can explain why I restart sparc ports:
- I like play
- I like to works on non standards things.
Is it usefull, not sure ;)
 

Wouldn't it be the first commercial
distribution (in couple of years) that allows to run the same system
across 5 arch

Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-07 Thread Vincent Danen
On Sat Jun 07, 2003 at 08:55:46PM +0200, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:

> 
> Releasing means supporting. supporting a product requires an 
> organisation and knowledge being available. It also needs to be 
> worthwhile --> bring some $$$ to the company. For the alpha, mips, 
> pa-risc and sparc the market is too small.
> 
> Since I'm more or less the maintainer of the alpha port, I've had some 
> interesting discussions with mdk employees on this topic. I don't have 
> the illusion that the alpha port will ever turn into a "product" that 
> will be supported and even bring revenue to mdk. I see it as my personal 
> research project --> I want to prove that maintaining multiple ports can 
> be done efficiently...
> 

Also, don't forget updates.  Unless the people who build these ports are
willing to maintain a system/chroot/whatever dedicated for 18mos for
building updates for these ports, it won't happen.  As Stefan says, making
this stuff "official" means it needs to be maintained; without having access
to these various machines for the duration of the lifecycle, it's not even
worth starting it.

That being said, there is nothing from stopping a community built/community
hosted unofficial port; the community builds the port, the community
maintains the port, and MandrakeSoft doesn't have any official dealings with
it (ie. the community completely and 100% supports it themselves).

For alpha, mips, pa-risc, and sparc, I think that would be the best shot.
You could like talk ibiblio or someone into hosting the port if you wanted
to make an "unofficial 9.2/pa-risc" release (or whatever).

For PPC, I'd love to see it released in tangent with x86 (as well as x86-64
and ia64 I guess).

-- 
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
Online Security Resource Book; http://linsec.ca/
"lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FE6F2AFD : 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7  66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}



pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-07 Thread Olivier Thauvin
Le Samedi 07 Juin 2003 20:55, Stefan van der Eijk a écrit :
> Jaroslaw Zachwieja wrote:
> >>But, we might be getting to the point where we actually need a cooker
> >>extranet. For example, I would like to be able to remove build output on
> >> an automated build host to get a package rebuilt, but we wouldn't want
> >>anyone to be able to remove build output ...

It seems installer need works on sparc/alpha; Guillaume Cottenceau seems to 
agree about working on port be he need a computer to test, of course.

About network, I have an athlon as frontend which host chroot for plf, it have 
lot of disk space, host unique home/repository for all development 
(i586/ppc/sparc).  

About buildoutput, I have a personnal script to rebuild package on ppc/sparc. 
log are put in a directory, maybe we can a unique repository where all 
rebuilder can upload automatically those files. With a standard convention 
naming for automatically removing obsoletes log.

> >
> >Well, SPARC's (and at some point Alpha and Opteron 240 SMP) at CSC are on
> >private network behind 9.1 i586 box. I can't see anything that should stop
> >us from creating the extranet and have the builds automated and
> >coordinated. Some centralised user authentication might be a good idea at
> >some point if we have more developers.
> >
> >The only drawback would be probably the fact, that single development
> >machines without dedicated front-end might need some more work to
> >configure everything, but I think that it'll be worth it.
> >
> >Stefan? Olivier? Gwenole? What do you think?
> >
> >At the moment, to my knowledge we have the following machines _dedicated_
> >to non-intel cooker development (please, developers, fill in all blanks):
> >
> >Alpha
> > - 2 x XP1000 - CSC still 7.1b - need help with this
> > - 1 x ?? - Stefan Van Der Eijk
>
> PWS 433au
>
> > - others?
>
> mpol has an alpha.
> Juan has one.
> there used to be one at the Paris office (same as Juan's?)
>
> >SPARC
> >
> > - 1 x SparcStation 10 SMP - Olivier Thauvin
> > - 1 x SparcClassic - CSC (unused - 32 bit system)
> > - 2 x Ultra 10 - CSC
> > - 1 x Ultra 5 - CSC
> > - others?
> >
> >PPC
> >
> > - 1 x ?? - Olivier Thauvin
Titanium G4 500, 512 Mo Ram
> > 
> > - others?
> >
> >x86_64
> >
> > - 1 x Dual Opteron 240 - CSC (ETA 15 days)
> > - others?
>
> PA-RISC
> - 1 x HP 9000 D-class model D390/800 - Stefan van der Eijk (on loan
> during the summer)
I have one HP box but don't know if linux can run on it. Will looking.

>
> MIPS
> - 1 x SGI IRIS Indigo - Stefan van der Eijk (RAM defect?)
>
> >I think, that only computers solely dedicated (i.e. not used in any other
> >way) may be listed here and eventually included in the extranet.
> >
> >Because CSC uses Mandrake on all workstations and servers, and we're very
> >happy with it (kudos to both cooker and core development teams!) our
> >position is to support development of the distribution by providing
> >hardware and network resources in return. Naturally we're aware that
> >hosting the machines is serious commitment (especially sustaining the
> >support over time) and we're ready to fulfil it.
> >
> >Maybe if we manage to pull this off before 9.2 and have all the packages
> >rebuilt, MandrakeSoft will be interested in releasing 9.2 for i586,
> >x86_64, Alpha, Sparc64 and PPC?
>
> 
> Releasing means supporting. supporting a product requires an
> organisation and knowledge being available. It also needs to be
> worthwhile --> bring some $$$ to the company. For the alpha, mips,
> pa-risc and sparc the market is too small.

Right, but look at ppc, mandrake exactly the same product as you can find on 
mirror ( 3 isos ). Mandrake never make somethings to promute the distro on 
non i586.

I think making an installable distro for sparc/alpha/ppc will make publicity 
and prove a mandrake activity.

>
> Since I'm more or less the maintainer of the alpha port, I've had some
> interesting discussions with mdk employees on this topic. I don't have
> the illusion that the alpha port will ever turn into a "product" that
> will be supported and even bring revenue to mdk. I see it as my personal
> research project --> I want to prove that maintaining multiple ports can
> be done efficiently...
> 

Well maybe I can explain why I restart sparc ports:
- I like play
- I like to works on non standards things.

Is it usefull, not sure ;)

>
> >Wouldn't it be the first commercial
> >distribution (in couple of years) that allows to run the same system
> >across 5 architectures?
>
> We'll have to see... :-)
>
> It would even be nice if we (the community) can maintain these ports and
> learn a bit & have some fun...

Fully agree

>
> >Comments/ideas anyone?

-- 
Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer
une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL.
Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/




Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-07 Thread Stefan van der Eijk
Jaroslaw Zachwieja wrote:

But, we might be getting to the point where we actually need a cooker
extranet. For example, I would like to be able to remove build output on
an automated build host to get a package rebuilt, but we wouldn't want
anyone to be able to remove build output ...
   

Well, SPARC's (and at some point Alpha and Opteron 240 SMP) at CSC are on 
private network behind 9.1 i586 box. I can't see anything that should stop 
us from creating the extranet and have the builds automated and 
coordinated. Some centralised user authentication might be a good idea at 
some point if we have more developers.

The only drawback would be probably the fact, that single development 
machines without dedicated front-end might need some more work to 
configure everything, but I think that it'll be worth it.

Stefan? Olivier? Gwenole? What do you think?

At the moment, to my knowledge we have the following machines _dedicated_ 
to non-intel cooker development (please, developers, fill in all blanks):

Alpha
- 2 x XP1000 - CSC still 7.1b - need help with this
- 1 x ?? - Stefan Van Der Eijk
PWS 433au

- others?

mpol has an alpha.
Juan has one.
there used to be one at the Paris office (same as Juan's?)
SPARC

- 1 x SparcStation 10 SMP - Olivier Thauvin
- 1 x SparcClassic - CSC (unused - 32 bit system)
- 2 x Ultra 10 - CSC
- 1 x Ultra 5 - CSC
- others?
PPC

- 1 x ?? - Olivier Thauvin
- others?
x86_64

- 1 x Dual Opteron 240 - CSC (ETA 15 days)
- others?
PA-RISC
- 1 x HP 9000 D-class model D390/800 - Stefan van der Eijk (on loan 
during the summer)

MIPS
- 1 x SGI IRIS Indigo - Stefan van der Eijk (RAM defect?)

I think, that only computers solely dedicated (i.e. not used in any other 
way) may be listed here and eventually included in the extranet.

Because CSC uses Mandrake on all workstations and servers, and we're very 
happy with it (kudos to both cooker and core development teams!) our 
position is to support development of the distribution by providing 
hardware and network resources in return. Naturally we're aware that 
hosting the machines is serious commitment (especially sustaining the 
support over time) and we're ready to fulfil it.

Maybe if we manage to pull this off before 9.2 and have all the packages 
rebuilt, MandrakeSoft will be interested in releasing 9.2 for i586, 
x86_64, Alpha, Sparc64 and PPC?


Releasing means supporting. supporting a product requires an 
organisation and knowledge being available. It also needs to be 
worthwhile --> bring some $$$ to the company. For the alpha, mips, 
pa-risc and sparc the market is too small.

Since I'm more or less the maintainer of the alpha port, I've had some 
interesting discussions with mdk employees on this topic. I don't have 
the illusion that the alpha port will ever turn into a "product" that 
will be supported and even bring revenue to mdk. I see it as my personal 
research project --> I want to prove that maintaining multiple ports can 
be done efficiently...


Wouldn't it be the first commercial 
distribution (in couple of years) that allows to run the same system 
across 5 architectures?

We'll have to see... :-)

It would even be nice if we (the community) can maintain these ports and 
learn a bit & have some fun...

Comments/ideas anyone?
 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-07 Thread Stew Benedict

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Jaroslaw Zachwieja wrote:

> At the moment, to my knowledge we have the following machines _dedicated_ 
> to non-intel cooker development (please, developers, fill in all blanks):
> 
> PPC
> 
>  - 1 x ?? - Olivier Thauvin
>  - others?
> 

I've let Olivier take over cooker PPC build because our official release 
schedule for PPC (subject to change/review of the business needs) is every 
other release.  My experience in 3 PPC releases is that very few people 
actually use PPC cooker, unless there are ISOs. So aside from personal 
curiosity that things build or not, it hardly seems worth the 
bandwidth/machine time to build cooker for PPC now, when the next release 
is 9 months out, if the business decides it's worth pursuing at all. While 
interest in all these ports is very nice, if MandrakeSoft doesn't bless 
them and negotiate space on the mirrors for them, then you're going to 
have to end up hosting them from some other server.  Rebuilding packages 
for other arches is fairly straightforward, but in my opinion what makes 
the distribution "Mandrake" is the integration of the installer and drak 
tools to behave appropriately for the architecture.

-- 
Stew Benedict




Re: [Cooker] Development extranet for non-intel builds [ALPHA:SPARC:PPC:X86_64]

2003-06-06 Thread bgmilne

> Well, SPARC's (and at some point Alpha and Opteron 240 SMP) at CSC are
> on  private network behind 9.1 i586 box. I can't see anything that
> should stop  us from creating the extranet and have the builds automated
> and
> coordinated. Some centralised user authentication might be a good idea
> at  some point if we have more developers.

I think this needs to be addressed for Mandrakesoft's uses anyway. Why do
I have seperate accounts for bugzilla (ok, at least the account works for
the wiki), build machines, MandrakeClub, MandrakeExpert (I should be able
to merge MandrakeExpert and MandrakeClub, but it doesn't get the
MandrakeExpert account I wanted, since I had two ...)?

I also think that applying the technology that we are shipping should be
done more.

A better implementation of something like this:
http://www.mandrakesecure.net/en/docs/samba-ldap-advanced.php

may be an idea ... each facility hosting an extranet member server could
have an LDAP slave and authenticate any necessary services against it.

>
> The only drawback would be probably the fact, that single development
> machines without dedicated front-end might need some more work to
> configure everything, but I think that it'll be worth it.
>
> Stefan? Olivier? Gwenole? What do you think?
>
> At the moment, to my knowledge we have the following machines
> _dedicated_  to non-intel cooker development (please, developers, fill
> in all blanks):

>  - others?

Sorry, we only have x86 :-(.

>
> I think, that only computers solely dedicated (i.e. not used in any
> other  way) may be listed here and eventually included in the extranet.
>
> Because CSC uses Mandrake on all workstations and servers, and we're
> very  happy with it (kudos to both cooker and core development teams!)
> our  position is to support development of the distribution by providing
>  hardware and network resources in return. Naturally we're aware that
> hosting the machines is serious commitment (especially sustaining the
> support over time) and we're ready to fulfil it.

BTW, this is very cool!

>
> Maybe if we manage to pull this off before 9.2 and have all the packages
>  rebuilt, MandrakeSoft will be interested in releasing 9.2 for i586,
> x86_64, Alpha, Sparc64 and PPC? Wouldn't it be the first commercial
> distribution (in couple of years) that allows to run the same system
> across 5 architectures?

I think there's a lot of work to be done before that happens, but a nice
dream ...

Regards,
Buchan